Mukesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mukesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 30, 2012

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048121

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1048121
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 30, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukesh

Advocate Shri. Pushpendra Dubey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

mukesh versus state & ors.writ petition no.10948 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: shri pushpendra dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. smt. d.k.bohrey, learned panel lawyer for the state. petitioner is working as training officer, i.t.i, betul and by the impugned order annexure p-1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to seronj district vidisha. it is the case of petitioner that the petitioner came to betul from baihar, district balaghat at his own expense after his representation was allowed on 15.6.2010 and not his transfer within a short period is unsustainable. keeping in view the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner, i am of the considered view that it is for respondent to consider this grievance of petitioner and take a decision. in view of above it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed claim, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of petitioner by a speaking order and till the aforesaid exercise is not completed status-quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained. with the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge ss/-

Full Judgment

Mukesh versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.10948 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt.

D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

Petitioner is working as Training Officer, I.T.I, Betul and by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Seronj District Vidisha.

It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner came to Betul from Baihar, District Balaghat at his own expense after his representation was allowed on 15.6.2010 and not his transfer within a short period is unsustainable.

Keeping in view the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is for respondent to consider this grievance of petitioner and take a decision.

In view of above it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed claim, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of petitioner by a speaking order and till the aforesaid exercise is not completed status-quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained.

With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Mukesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education